Posted on 03/26/2009 10:13:28 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
There is a specific difference between them, though.
An antihistimine is specifically taken to curb a dysfunction.
Alcohol and pot are specifically taken to induce a dysfunction.
I’m not sure you see the logic.
I'm pretty sure the prescription drugs will land you a DUI charge.
But frankly, I would be just as angry with someone who caused an accident while yakking on their cell phone as I would with someone who's had a few too many beers.
Wouldn't you?
No everyone who causes and accident should be treated as though they caused an accident. Of course some people are inattentative, but many are just poor drivers. I happen to think poor drivers should be punished for being poor drivers. Maybe not the same as drunkards and dopers, but punished nonetheless. It would encourage them to be better drivers.
An egregious example is the old guy who drove through the Santa Monica farmers market and killed all those people, and then got off with a slap on the wrist.
I’m upset at all accidents. However, a cell phone is not something used to induce a dysfunction, with no other benefits.
Pot and alcohol are taken to induce a dysfunction alone.
Alcohol and pot are specifically taken to induce a dysfunction.
A distinction without a difference, in practical terms.
What a great marketing campaign, get hot chicks stoned.
So you would argue that someone who kills someone in self-defense should be treated the same as someone who pre-meditated their killing? As you would say, that would be “a distinction without a difference, in practical terms.”
Pot and alcohol are taken to induce a dysfunction alone.
True, but the crime you're referencing here isn't the taking of drugs, but the driving of the car while impaired. So while a person may take an anithistamine for a legitimate purpose, they make a choice to drive while their faculties are possibly impaired.
That seems just as premeditated to me.
I don't think that analogy holds up.
Murder and killing are not the same acts, necessarily, and killing in self-defense is certainly not the same act as murder.
Driving impaired is driving impaired, regardless of the substance.
The issue is a Libertarian wet dream, and they don't understand why this is not a Conservative agenda, and never will be.
The antihistamine use is extended to drunkards, too, and would protect them if only they weren’t drunk.
I’m not arguing that those who drive drunk can’t be given the same allowance we give others for talking on a cell phone, while taking antihistamines, etc. My problem is with their compounding the problem with something meant only to pervert their rational abilities alone.
You are saying that killing someone from inattention is the same as killing someone from drunk driving.
I don't think you understand those are the same argument and that you are inconsistent.
Lots of violent crimes are committed because of the illegal drug trade. Murders, kidnappings, brutal beatings...etc..
I have been playing with the argument of decriminalizing drugs, but only if you register as a user. If you want to smoke pot, fine; register as a user. Any employer can ask if you are a registered user, as well as your insurance company.
Those who believe that government must make our decisions for us must be the Obama voters on this forum. There’s a lot of them.
I did not say that. I said the ACTS weren't the same. Killing someone while defending yourself is a different act than premeditated murder.
I would even argue the results AREN'T the same: in one, an innocent person is killed; in the other, a guilty person.
You are saying that killing someone from inattention is the same as killing someone from drunk driving.
"Inattention" can mean many things. Stick with the antihistamine analogy: killing someone by driving impaired after taking antihistamines is the same as doing so while drunk.
I can see your point. I don't really agree, though.
The idea that legalization would somehow improve the economy is silly. We need legalization to save the Constitution from the shredder and to deprive violent drug cartels of a major source of revenue.
I can see why they want to tax it, tobacco taxes are not keeping up with the declining sales of cigerattes fast enough for the budget.
I don’t want to have to deal or try to converse with someone that is somewhere off in space.
—
Hey now. Obama did it the other day .. talking to the folks in the Space Station. They’re still scratching their heads over his jokes, Tang etc.. Who’s stoned? ;-)
On the bright side, stoned people are content as long as they have a roof, food, and TV. Much less demanding. I say we pass it out like candy. Keeps them away from the voting booths.
I heard that's already legal.
Just don't try smoking it.
But seriously. Anyone who wants to legalize pot is a LIBERAL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.